The World and Everything in It: July 7, 2023

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like us. My name is Megan Sims, and I live in Mead, Kansas, where I work as a laboratory technologist. In my free time I write reviews on my blog, Meg's Book Query, as I aspire to be as discerning and edifying as Megan Basham and Collin Garbarino. I have no doubt you will enjoy today's program.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Good morning! Today on Culture Friday: State legislation that targets free speech and predicates parental rights on compliance with gender ideology.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And a final word on 303 Creative, the Supreme Court case from Coloradan John Stonestreet. He’ll be along in a few minutes for Culture Friday.

And Tom Cruise is back with Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning Part One. How does it stack up against the rest of the franchise?

AUDIO: It knows your story and how it ends.

And this month’s Ask the Editor.

BROWN: It’s Friday, July 7th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

BROWN: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

BIDEN: Hello South Carolina!

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Biden » President Biden is out on the campaign trail touting what the White House is calling “Bidenomics.”

BIDEN: Bidenomics is just another way of saying restoring the American dream. Forty years of trickle-down limited the dream to those at the top.

A new Associated Press poll shows only 34% of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of the economy. And his campaign is hoping to turn that around.

The president made his pitch Wednesday to a skeptical public that the U.S. economy is thriving under his policies. He highlighted what he called huge investments in the US economy.

But Republicans call it huge spending. South Carolina Senator and GOP presidential candidate Tim Scott:

SCOTT: Every single month since he’s been in office except for one, inflation outpacing increases in wages. We’ve done better. We can do better.

Republicans charge that massive spending under President Biden has fueled inflation and hurt the economy.

Trump aid pleads not guilty » Former President Donald Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges that he helped the former president hide classified documents from federal authorities. WORLD’s Kristen Flavin has more.

KRISTEN FLAVIN: Nauta was charged alongside Trump in June, but his arraignment was twice delayed.

Prosecutors allege that Nauta, following Trump’s direction, moved boxes of documents that were marked as “classified.” They say the intent was to hide the records from a Trump lawyer who was tasked with searching for classified records to return to the government.

Prosecutors say Nauta also misled the FBI during an interview by claiming he was unaware of boxes of documents that had been delivered to Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

For WORLD, I’m Kristen Flavin.

Yellen » Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is in Beijing this morning where she’ll meet face to face with China’s No. 2 leader, Premier Li Qiang.

She plans to tell Chinese officials that Washington wants healthy economic competition.

And the Treasury Department says Yellen will reiterate that Washington does not support so-called decoupling, disconnecting U.S. and Chinese industries and markets.

But she will express several concerns:

Among them: Beijing’s controls on the export of metals used in semiconductors and solar panels.

Iowa abortion » Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds is calling for more legislation to protect the unborn. WORLD’s Josh Schumacher has more.

JOSH SCHUMACHER: The state Supreme Court ruled last month that a 2018 pro-life heartbeat law could not take effect.

The law would’ve protected babies starting as soon as six weeks of pregnancy, but currently babies are only protected after 20 weeks of gestation in the state.

So now the GOP controlled legislature is looking to pass another pro-life law.

The special session for state lawmakers is scheduled to start Tuesday of next week.

For WORLD, I’m Josh Schumacher.

Threads launch » Facebook’s parent company Meta has just launched a new social media platform to compete with Twitter.

The micro-blogging platform called Threads amassed more than 30 million users in less than a day as people are able to log-in with their existing Instagram accounts.

Meta announced the app’s launch days after Twitter owner Elon Musk imposed temporary limits on the number tweets users can view each day. The move is meant to combat third-party data-mining, but it’s angered many users.

Social media Consultant Matt Navarra:

Navarra: How upset are people with Elon Musk and Twitter that they would happily go to a Meta app? It's hard to tell whether the upset and discontent is strong enough to make a mass exodus.

But some users are already reporting heavy censorship on Threads in contrast to Twitter’s recent commitment to free speech on its platform.

It’s unclear right now if the new platform will suspend users for not using the preferred pronouns people who identify as the opposite sex.

Wagner head in Russia » The leader of the Wagner mercenary group, who led a short-lived mutiny against the Kremlin was expected to live in exile in Belarus as part of an agreement to call off his march on Moscow.

LUKASHENKO: [Speaking Russian]

But according to Belarusian strongman Alexander Lukashenko, Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin is in Russia.

Lukashenko's claim could not be verified, and the Kremlin won’t comment on the whereabouts of Prigozhin. But Russian media report that he was recently seen at his offices in St. Petersburg.

It was not clear if Prigozhin's presence in Russia violates the deal or if the agreement allowed him to finalize his affairs in Russia.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Culture Friday with John Stonestreet. Plus, the next chapter in the Mission Impossible franchise.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s the 7th day of July 2023. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s Culture Friday. Joining us now is John Stonestreet, the president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint Podcast. John, good morning.

JOHN STONESTREET: Good morning.

BROWN: John, there’s an old adage, sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

Clearly the person who came up with that couldn’t have foreseen modern-day Michigan.

There’s a piece of legislation there known as H-B 4474 that’s moving toward approval. It makes draconian changes to an anti-harassment law that would place educators in extreme danger if they refuse to use the preferred pronoun of a trans-identifying student.

BTW, there’s a hefty fine and jail time attached to this bill.

Bethel McGrew is a high-school teacher in Michigan and a writer for WORLD Opinions. She’s concerned that educators like her with conservative convictions could be especially vulnerable.

She writes: “While teachers can attempt to sidestep the risk with ‘trans’ students by simply not using third-person address, various situations make it unavoidable.”

What do you think John? Is this an example of Michigan lawmakers trying to criminalize incorrect pronoun use? And if so, it seems to me, teachers aren’t the only ones at risk.

STONESTREET: I think that’s right. It does seem to be an example of this. It’s one thing to say, “look, you can’t do this and still teach for the state of Michigan.” I think that’s problematic given what we know about freedom of speech and freedom of religion, if that’s all this did. But the fact that this comes along with criminal penalties is something else entirely.

It’s not just someone will lose their position, it says someone actually will be punished by the state and forced to comply. And eventually, if we’re saying that this is something that the state considers to be harmful, it won’t just apply to teachers, it’ll apply to anyone who first works with students and young people. And then pretty quickly—because there’s not a more fragile group and within the population as those who identify as trans—this will be something that applies across the board.

Their definition of being harmed is a pretty low bar to jump over. And so there’ll be all kinds of penalties. I don’t think that this is going to get through the other side of the Michigan Legislature as far as I can see. Maybe it will, but I think it’ll be quickly challenged. Especially given the three to three decision and the court’s seeming indication in terms of protecting free speech, and seeing that the kind of the whole mess that was created by the court and Obergefell v. Hodges, the courts going to have to I think and rectify this.

And I think they understand that now. I think there was this hopeful sense back in the day that we would be able to just change marriage fundamentally with all of its consequences and definitions and impact on kids and education and everything else and everything will just fall in line. And that hasn’t been the case.

EICHER: Well, now, this may connected to 303 Creative as well, John—and I do want to talk about that before we go, but speaking of state legislation: I was really interested in this story by Mary Jackson at WORLD. Let me just read the first few paragraphs. It starts this way:

Each week, 3-year-old Sawyer spends half of his time with his mother. The other half, the boy is with his father, Harrison Tinsley of Los Gatos, Calif.

While with his dad, Sawyer wears boys’ clothes, and Tinsley refers to his child as “him.” But his mother refers to Sawyer using “they/them” pronouns and, according to social media posts, appears to sometimes put him in a dress or makeup.

Tinsley is fighting in court for full ­custody of his son. But if a new California bill becomes law, he worries a judge could label him abusive since he refuses to treat Sawyer as nonbinary.

The bill is called California Assembly Bill 957. It cleared the state Senate Judiciary Committee [less than a month ago], instructs family court judges to award custody and visitation rights based in part on “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.” It equates such affirmation with the “health, safety, and welfare of the child.” But critics say the bill sets a dangerous legal precedent that extends beyond family court—and parents and pro-family groups in the state are fighting back.

Final bit here. This is from a state senator. A Republican. State Sen. Scott Wilk. He said this in a speech to the Judiciary Committee: “If you love your children, you need to flee California.”

Question: I’m sure he’s saying this for political effect. But do you think this is going to be a trend, and we’re starting to see this, where people sort into states ideologically like this, and what does it say about our stability as a nation?

STONESTREET: I think it already has happened, just not necessarily on this issue. But certainly on some others. I mean, you’ve had plenty of political issues that have driven a great Exodus out of, for example, New York and Florida. If you look at the net emigration across state lines, it’s just what you think: People are fleeing progressive states, and they’re piling into conservative states. And when that happens, there’s going to be consequences.

But I think what you’re talking about here, what this state senator is talking about here, is something else. And if you actually love your children, you can’t actually love your children; the state will compete with you for your children. Now, that’s already happened in California for a while, but it’s a big deal. And there was a conversation recently that went viral on Twitter, of a woman who has been very outspoken as a feminist pushing back against this trans rights movement. She brought up something that I think is very important and very true that we don’t often think about is that if you’re the parent on the “affirming” side of this (which is the exact opposite meaning of affirming your child, basically saying he was born into the wrong body) like in this case of the story that you talked about earlier, where the mom now has basically gone all in and is re-identifying her kid, it’s going to be this. As this woman described it almost impossible for this mom to relent on this. And the reason is because now this woman has been so deeply invested in what is an obvious and terrible harm she’s done as a mother against her child.

The only way to justify that, short of basically saying, “I’m a psychopath”, is to actually stick with it and think that the harm you’re doing is actually good. Otherwise, in terms of what she has actually done, how can she ever find redemption for that? How can she ever find forgiveness of that? How can she ever make sense of what she did to her own child now for years?

It’s such a deep personal harm that if she’s not right, she’s not just wrong, she’s really, really, really wrong. Now, that also means to that the only real institution that can actually provide a way forward that isn’t basically doubling down on these harms is the church, because only the church has forgiveness, only the church has reconciliation. Only the church has the message of the Gospel, in which someone can be made right with God, and therefore be made right with each other; only the church has the message that these relationships are divinely structured and have meaning and purpose and we can be restored to them. So, you know, people say this is not an issue that we should get all worked up about. There’s a reason that the other side gets so worked up about it. It’s because they understand how much is at stake, and we should too.

EICHER: John, we just have a few minutes left, and I know you wanted to touch on 303 Creative. I think we’ve done a stellar job at WORLD at covering that case. We’ve come at it from a legal perspective. We’ve debunked irresponsible media coverage and the misinformation from the mainstream press … and the outright disinformation campaign by federal and state government officials and even attorneys licensed to practice before the Supreme Court. Pretty serious stuff. We’ve talked with the woman who made the winning argument … that would be Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom.

But John, you live in Colorado, you operate an organization in Colorado. How do you view it from where you’re seated?

STONESTREET: I’ll try to make it quick. Number one, our Attorney General and our Solicitor General have not learned their lesson. That has been absolutely clear in the wake of this, despite the fact that they’re 0 for 2; not just going to the Supreme Court and losing, but going to the court and getting smacked down and embarrassed. So at some point our state needs to step in, and they’re doubling down on their idiocy.

The second thing that I think emerges out of the 303 case is sort of valuer’s dissent. I’m old enough to remember her confirmation hearings, in which a speech that she gave at Cal Berkeley where in essence she was offering a fully postmodern view of legal theory built on the ideas of Michel Foucault. She actually said to judges an exercise of power, and some of us were like, well, what if you take that seriously? Her dissent basically is this postmodern legal theory. It was not based on fact, it was based on grievance and identity categories that are not based in reality. I think that’s a really important thing.

And then the third thing: I think the obvious take away is my deep respect and appreciation for Christian Wagoner in the Alliance Defending Freedom. And right now, since that decision, the level of slander that has been embraced and tolerated and accelerated in national media because of this completely irrelevant explanation from the person who solicited business from Laurie Smith and 303 Creative gives an opportunity for a level of slander against Aaron Holly and Christian Wagoner. And if you’re a Christian, if you’re a conservative, if you’re American of conscience and concerned at all, you won’t give that critique a second glance. I fear that because so many evangelicalism and center-left evangelicals are quick to believe any critique against the church, that this is going to have way more staying power than it should. It’s irrelevant. It’s foolish. It’s a setup. And I’m glad for the 303 decision; the world’s a better place because of it.

BROWN: All right. John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center, and he's host of the Breakpoint podcast. Thanks John.

STONESTREET: Thank you.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Friday, July 7th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Coming next on The World and Everything in It: what’s new in theaters.

On the Fourth of July, the faith-inflected Angel studios rolled out a film that earned an impressive $14 million. The movie is called Sound of Freedom, and it’s based on the true story of a man who’s devoted his life to rescuing children from trafficking.

But the big blockbusters? So far, they’re flopping. Most have underperformed at the box office.

BROWN: Tom Cruise is hoping for a repeat of last year when he blew up the box office with Top Gun: Maverick.

He’s got a new installment in the Mission: Impossible franchise. Dead Reckoning Part One comes out Wednesday, and WORLD arts and culture editor Collin Garbarino will tell us what to expect.

COLLIN GARBARINO: Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to save America’s flagging box office. When everyone else is betting on streaming, who’d be crazy enough to take on that mission? Tom Cruise, of course. He’s been one of Hollywood’s most vocal proponents of seeing films in theaters. And with his ambitious Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One, he provides some over-the-top spectacle that helps make his case.

Cruise returns as super spy Ethan Hunt of the IMF, America’s covert operatives of last resort. Ethan’s latest impossible mission involves tracking down a key that every government on the planet is trying to get to first. Whoever holds this key possesses the ability to control a rogue artificial intelligence that’s manipulating the world’s information systems.

KITTRIDGE: This is our chance to control the truth. The concepts of right and wrong for everyone for centuries to come.

Ethan and his long-term teammates Benji and Luther, played by Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg, are once again helped by his sort-of girlfriend and former MI6 operative Ilsa Faust, played by Rebecca Ferguson. A shadowy villain from Ethan’s past, played by Esai Morales, also hopes to secure the key for his own hidden agenda. And Hayley Atwell plays Grace, a talented thief who wants to sell the key to the highest bidder.

The filming on Dead Reckoning started more than two years before ChatGPT accelerated the debate over the ethics of AI, but the movie mirrors current fears about our changing relationship with technology. 

GABRIEL: His fate is written. Shall we write yours, too?

The film asks whether we can preserve truth in a digital age. Can information be trusted when algorithms easily manipulate the ones and zeros?

In one scene, hundreds of intelligence agents furiously type on manual typewriters, trying to preserve digital records before the rogue AI rewrites the past.

ALANNA: The world is changing. Truth is vanishing. War is coming.

Everyone wants to control this powerful AI, but the AI doesn’t want to be controlled. It actually demonstrates how easily it can control humans. The algorithm deftly bends the will of human beings usually without their realizing it. Some people actually devote themselves to the system with a cult-like fervor.

GABRIEL: It knows your story and how it ends.

Mission: Impossible warns us that technology is a false god.

While the film contains its social critique, it also acts as a meta commentary on Hollywood’s addiction to computer-generated imagery. Like Cruise’s other movies, Dead Reckoning relies primarily on practical effects, with Cruise and the other actors performing their own stunts. And despite being rooted in reality, Dead Reckoning offers bigger and better spectacle than most recent superhero films, with top-notch fights, chases, and sheer daredevilry.

HUNT: Your life will always matter more to me than my own.

Cruise says avoiding CGI allows his films to tell better stories because the actors exercise their craft within physical space rather than in front of a green screen. There’s a visceral quality to these action sequences that’s reflected in Cruise’s face. Speaking of Cruise’s face, he’s looking impossibly young. I’m guessing his scruples don’t keep him from using AI-assisted CGI to help smooth the crow’s feet.

LUTHER: Ethan, what’s your objective. What’s your ultimate objective?

The film is rated PG-13 for action, violence, a little language, and some suggestive dancing in the background of one scene.

Mission: Impossible is probably my favorite franchise, and I’ll rank this film right in the middle of the seven films to date. It’s not quite as good ast four, five, and six, but it’s better than one, two and three.

In a movie full of the impossible, the premise still lacks believability. I never bought the explanation for why they need a physical key to control a world-wide rogue AI. The heist element that’s usually so prominent is also a little lacking.

This movie is so ambitious that it gets a little bloated. The cast includes more than a dozen characters, including Cary Elwes as a U.S. government official, Pom Klementieff as a crazed assassin, and Henry Czerny returning as Eugene Kittridge from the first film. Despite its hefty 2-hours-and-43-minute runtime, many characters get short shrift, disappearing to make room for others.

KITTRIDGE: Ethan, this mission of yours is going to cost you dearly.

Don’t expect to hear Ethan shout, “Mission accomplished!” in this one. Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One is such a big movie that, as the name implies, the story is split into two halves, with Part Two due in 2024. I was thankful though that Part One ends with some semblance of resolution while setting up the next installment.

For fans of old school action movies and practical effects, Mission: Impossible 7 is definitely worth seeing, and worth seeing on a big screen.

I’m Collin Garbarino.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Friday, July 7th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Up next, Ask the Editor. Today, WORLD Radio’s Executive Producer answers a couple of recent emails and has an update from the Editorial Council. Here’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: The first email I’d like to address comes from Joshua Cools. He wrote to us this week with some feedback on a missed opportunity. Here’s a portion of Joshua’s message:

I am a long-time daily listener and first time donor... I am writing to note that I was disappointed that [you]… gave such little attention to Juneteenth during the June 19th podcast, particularly when part of the show was the World History Book. It seems like that would have been a great opportunity to provide a little more context…the end of slavery in this country is something worth celebrating and deserved a little more air time. Thanks for your faithful work.

Well Joshua, thank you for your thoughtful critique. You did so with grace, and I appreciate it. I understand your disappointment in the lack of significant coverage of Juneteenth last month. While we acknowledged it in our newscast, you’re right, we could have made a bigger deal of the day—especially as this was the first year Juneteenth was a federal holiday. And you’re also right that our Monday History Book segment would have been a great place to highlight it. Sorry I missed that opportunity. I will look for ways to better mark the day next year. Thanks for being a faithful listener.

Next, some feedback on our features. Last week we heard from Ashlyn Hall. She’s been a regular listener to the program for more than five years. She and her husband are financial supporters of WORLD and have submitted multiple pre-rolls. She wrote in with a critique of some of our recent human interest stories:

Dear Editor,

…I love your program and use it to get most of my News information…[but] I find that many of the features after the headline news are becoming increasingly…irrelevant…Until recently, I’ve never ‘fast forwarded’ through your stories but I am doing it on a daily basis now. I don’t know what’s changed, if anything, but felt compelled to let you know.

Kind regards…

Ashlyn and I have corresponded a few times since that email, and thought I’d share a few highlights of our communication in case you have the same concerns:

From the beginning of our podcast, we've been committed to a magazine format. That means we cover the latest news—or what our editors identify as: “obligatory stories.” But we also cover stories that don’t have as strong a news hook, but provide opportunities to report on what we call “discretionary stories.”

Like the Apostle Paul at the Areopagus in Acts chapter 17, we seek to declare how God is at work in the world that He’s made. That's why we cover what's going on in the SBC while at the same time introduce listeners to how God is at work through a veteran who uses horses to foster healing in the lives of other veterans.

We often describe our mission as: “Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.” Our goal with these human interest stories is to inspire you. We hope that you will be encouraged by the things people are doing for God's glory and the good of His world. We also hope that you will be motivated to go serve God in some capacity yourself—using your gifts, experiences, and interests to build up the church or touch the world in a small way with the hope of the gospel.

Now we may not always hit the mark, but these stories play an important role in our program. As the news of the day is often difficult and discouraging, these types of stories lift our eyes up from the trouble and give us a chance to consider some of the good news around us. Perhaps we can do a better job framing the stories so you know why we think they are relevant, and we'll take a look at how to do that better.”

After I sent that email to Ashlyn, she replied almost immediately with this encouraging response:

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your thoughtful [email]. I will definitely keep an open mind and try to seek God’s purpose for me in the reports that I don’t find as interesting.

Your sister in Christ.

I love that. One of the things that makes our relationship with you so different from other podcasts is that we are brothers and sisters. We are redeemed by the same Christ, united by the same Holy Spirit, and set apart for good deeds by the same God. So Ashlyn, thank you for letting us know how we’re doing and at the same time being so gracious in the process.

Finally this morning, a quick update: a couple months ago I mentioned during this segment that the Editorial Council was working on updating our style guide in relation to the use of the term “progressive” in our reporting. Well last month we approved a new guideline for our reporters and editors. Here’s what we’ve decided:

We will minimize the use of this term progressive when describing groups or ideologies unless it is part of a proper name. We may use other terms like “left” or “leftist” instead but it is better to describe the specific beliefs behind such a label than to use the label as an identifier. Or to put it another way, we discourage the use of the term, but we don’t outright prohibit it.

And that’s this month’s Ask the Editor, I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Well, it’s time to say thanks to the team members who helped put the program together this week:

Mary Reichard, David Bahnsen, Jenny Rough, Mary Muncy, Emily Whitten, Steve West, Onize Ohikere, Sharon Dierberger, Daniel Darling, Lillian Hamman, Cal Thomas, John Stonestreet, and Collin Garbarino.

Thanks also to our breaking news team: Kent Covington, Lynde Langdon, Steve Kloosterman, Lauren Canterberry, Christina Grube, and Josh Schumacher.

And thanks to the guys who stay up late to get the program to you early … thanks to Johnny Franklin and Carl Peetz.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Our producer is Harrison Watters. Our production team includes Kristen Flavin, Benj Eicher, and Bekah McCallum.

Anna Johansen Brown is features editor, and Paul Butler is executive producer.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says: “[Jesus] rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him? Matthew 8, verses 26 and 27.

Let’s worship with our brothers and sisters in Christ in church this weekend!

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.